Mark multiple todos as completed in one call by supplying their IDs, consolidating individual updates into a single batch write.
Mark multiple todos as completed in one call.
Args: todo_ids: List of todo UUIDs to complete.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| todo_ids | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the operation transitions todos to a completed state and is batched, but it omits important details for a mutating bulk operation: idempotency, partial failure behavior, handling of invalid or missing IDs, return value, and permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by a minimal and relevant Args block. There is no filler or redundant detail; every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but it is still a mutating bulk operation with no annotations. The description covers what the tool does and what the parameter means, but it leaves meaningful gaps around return behavior and failure semantics. Adequate, yet not fully complete for safe autonomous invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does by defining todo_ids as 'List of todo UUIDs to complete.' This adds UUID format and clarifies the role of the parameter beyond the schema's generic 'Todo Ids' title. It does not add constraints like limits or uniqueness, but for a single list parameter the explanation is sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Mark'), a clear resource ('todos'), and an explicit outcome ('completed' in one call). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like bulk_reschedule or update_checklist without needing to inspect schemas.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as batch_update or bulk_reschedule. It does not state any exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.